Reply to comment by Ben-Zvi, A., D. Rosenfeld and A. Givati on the paper: Levin, Z., N. Halfon and P. Alpert, “Reassessment of rain experiments and operations in Israel including synoptic considerations,” Atmos. Res. 97, 513–525. DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2010.06.011

Abstract

Levin et al. (2010; hereafter LHA) (Levin, Z., Halfon, N., Alpert, P., 2010. Reassessment of rain experiments and operations in Israel including synoptic considerations. Atmos. Res. 97, 513–525. DOI:10.1016/j.atmosres.2010.06.011.), reanalyzed the results of the operational seeding in northern Israel between 1975 and 2007 and the preceding Israel 2 cloud seeding experiment (1969–1975) and concluded that there is no net increase in precipitation over the target areas. Our analysis revealed that a synoptic bias during Israel 2 is one of the reasons for the apparent positive effect of seeding in the northern target area and the negative effect in the southern area both of which disappeared in the following experiment in the south (Israel 3; 1975–1995) and the operational seeding in the north.Ben-Zvi et al. (2010;hereafter BRG) criticized our paper primarily on the ground that we did not consider the positive results of Israel 1 experiment (1960–1967). It should be noted that in Israel 1 different seeding lines were used from those in both Israel 2 and the operational period. In addition, its raw data is not accessible anymore for reanalysis. Furthermore, Israel 2 had been designed as a confirmatory cross-over experiment to Israel 1 and failed to reproduce its promising results with double ratio (DR) of ~1.00, namely, zero rainfall enhancements. The same DR values were also found in Israel 3 and in the operational seeding. Therefore, because of the differences in the two experiments, the lack of access to the raw data and the disappointing results of the confirmatory experiment, we decided to concentrate our analysis on the more recent seeding activities.The attempt by BRG to explain the reduction of the DR to ~1.00 in the operational seeding period by the suppression due to pollution have been disproved by Alpert et al. (2008, 2009) and also fail to explain the sharp decline of the target/control ratio right at the beginning of the operational seeding period when the lucky draw in this area came to its end (see LHA).